Complainant Saurabh Tiwari (petitioner in revision petition 4131/2009) and the Commissioner of M.P. Housing board and others, -2- which were the opposite parties before the District Forum (petitioner in revision petition 4547/2009) have filed these cross revision petitions against the same impugned order. In this order, the parties shall be referred to by their original status. Complainant was allotted a junior MIG house by the opposite parties. On taking possession of the said house, complainant came to know that there were many defects in the house because of which it was not habitable. The costs estimated by one Irfan Mohd. for repairs of the house came to Rs.2,47,000/-. As the opposite parties did not carry out the repairs, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum vide its order dated 11.1.2007 allowed the complaint and gave the following directions: 7. On the basis of above discussions the complaint of the complainant is accepted and the following orders are issued against the opposite party Madhya Pradesh Grih Nirman Mandal through its Commissioner : - a) The opposite party Board is directed to remove all the defects in the House no, HIG 699 owned by Mr.Saurabh Tiwari within twso months which have been mentioned in the estimate prepared by Irfan Mohd. And in the default of the non-removal of the defects opposite party Board shall pay Rs.2,47,000/-to the complainant so that the complainant may remove the defects on its own cost. b) The opposite party Board will pay interest on the amount Rs.7,99,186/- deposited by the complainant with the Board @ 16% per annum from 1.4.2002 to 9.11.2004 the date of delivery of the possession of the house. c) The opposite party Board will pay the damage Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the opposite parties filed the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum regarding Relief 7 (a). Clause B and C of para 7 were left unaffected. The State Commission modified the relief 7 (a) in the following terms: “However, it cannot be believed that because of aforesaid defects towards repairs the allottee would be entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,47,000/-. Repairs are not carried out by the Housing Board, surprisingly the -4- bill/estimate is shown to be of Rs.2,47,000/-. This shows that there has been some jugglery of figures in bringing the claim to Rs.2,47,000/-. We are of the view that the respondent is entitled only to 50% of the amount required to be paid in lieu of repairs.” A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph would show that the State Commission has reduced the compensation by 50% in an arbitrary manner without recording any reasons in support of the finding arrived at. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the impugned order be set aside and the case be remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law by recording clear and unambiguous findings giving reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at. The order of the State Commission is set aside. The case is remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law in terms of the direction issued above. All contentions are left Open. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 05.04.2011. -5- We would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal filed by the Housing Board expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of appearance. | 
